Superman III was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 30, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / Comic book / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Comics: DC Comics / Superman / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article is supported by Superman work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Ross Webster was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Superman III. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

/Archive 1

Image:Superman III DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The neutrality is said to be disputed, and I agree. I think the Critical reaction Is the main factor for this. Here is something I removed:

• It is generally accepted that while the film was inferior to its predecessors, it was still significantly superior to the universally-derided 'Quest for Peace', which followed four years later.

Limetolime 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The problem is well beyond that. Has anyone actually read the footnotes?? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Was it a real battle, or was it taking place inside his head?-- Fingerknöchelkopf ( talk) 10:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I interpreted it symbolically, but the scene seemed ambiguous. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * ( talk) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It was also really, really lame. And the critics said so too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, the final battle was lamer. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * ( talk) 11:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

And what does it say about a film's quality, when we have a debate over which part of it is lamer? :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I thought the movie was okay, you just have to accept it as campy silliness. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * ( talk) 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Like a lot of films that really aren't very well done, it was worth seeing once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it was real. i think something similar happened in the comics as a result of Red kryptonite. Bosco13 22nd April 2009

Image:S3csound.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I am failing this article because several of its images have no fair-use rationale. Also, many sections are lacking citations. There are "citation needed" and "weasel word" tags. Lastly, there isn't any production section and the plot summary is too long. Feel free to renominate when these things are fixed. (It is a pretty good movie by the way :) ) Wrad ( talk) 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

similar to Red and Black Kryptonite Red? Maybe. Black? Didn't exist yet at the time of the film. I just took them both out; comparisons aren't necessary, the description of the fake-K's effect can stand on its own without throwing in what it's "kinda like". There's too many uncited kinda-likes in WP articles as it is. -- Noclevername ( talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not completely sure about this, but wasn't this film produced in the US. The article, in particular the information box at the top, seems to say that it was produced in the UK. Jaker penguin ( talk) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I was thinking the same thing. I thought it was weird that it was filmed and produced in the U.S., but it says that the country of origin is the UK. Is this due to the director being British? Kman543210 ( talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Since this hasn't been answered in the 7+ years since the question was posed, should it really be called a British film? I mean, it's truly awful, so I'm not eager for the change, but this is supposed to be encyclopedic, yeah? How about dropping "British" and leaving it as just a film... a terrible, TERRIBLE film, but I won't add that to the main entry. 69.142.70.108 ( talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Done. 2601:154:C000:3D3F:1128:4C7C:3EEA:A289 ( talk) 14:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC) reply

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb ( talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

[ [1]]

If anyone cares.

http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Superman_III_1983.aspx

The asshole who runs the site is an asshole. After giving him a donation to keep the site running a few years back, he banned my account. I disputed the donation with PayPal and got my money back. I just read his reviews (or as he calls these: recaps), but I don't bother with the forum or him anymore.

Apple8800 ( talk) 11:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Just corrected a correction. Apple8800 ( talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The "MX Missile" referred to in the movie is actually an oversized caricature of the ASALM, Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile. Interestingly, the real missile was cancelled in 1980. ASALM

The "real" MX, the LGM-118, is a vertical-silo-launched, nuclear-armed ICBM. LGM-118_Peacekeeper

This isn't to point out a flaw in the article, just a flaw in the film itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.122.217 ( talk) 06:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply

There is no mention on the novel of this movie. This is the only Superman movie to be novelized — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 03:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Moreover, the conclusion of the film, in which the computer transforms Anne Webster into an android, is that of the old STARFIRE comic, in which an ancient computer transforms the villainess, Lady Djinn, into a computer before destroying both himself and her. 76.68.83.82 ( talk) 16:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Why does it say "Superman III is a 1983 American superhero Parody film"? it is not meant to be a parody of Superman it is the third film in the Superman film series and while parts of the movie are rather silly, they were going with a very family friendly take on Superman in this film and Superman IV. Mattseay3000 ( talk) 07:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago ( talk) 16:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Release

===Release=== This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) Superman III was released on June 17, 1983 with a running time of 125 minutes. An extended cut was first shown on ABC in 1985 with an extra 16 minutes of added footage (thus, making the running time 141 minutes). The credits were moved to the beginning of the film with the traditional "in space" format in order to insert the deleted material from the streets of Metropolis scene where the credits were in the theatrical version. Just like with the previous two Superman movies, the television edition of Superman III was produced by Alexander Salkind's company. Although Warner Bros. released the film, once it hit broadcast syndication the distribution rights were held by Viacom's syndication unit and its successor Paramount Domestic Television. Viacom/Paramount also distributed Supergirl and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, the rights to which were sold to Cannon Films (and a portion of whose library was acquired by Paramount after the company folded). Warner eventually acquired the full rights to the Superman franchise but no longer has the rights to Superman IV. In the United Kingdom, the extended version had been shown about two or three times in the late 1980s.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superman III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004233831/http://superman.ugo.com/movies/supermanIII/default.asp to http://superman.ugo.com/movies/supermanIII/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Please review WP:ELMIN. DonQuixote ( talk) 23:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

To editor DonQuixote: I am still editing the article and adding discussion of the extended edition. Once it's there you cans see that the link is not an extra, but gives additional info about the extended edition, currently not mentioned in the article.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 23:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If you can cite a source that's not IMDb, then go right ahead. But then, it would be better to add a link to the reliable source than IMDb anyways. DonQuixote ( talk) 23:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

To editor DonQuixote: the external link is for additional information only, relevant to the extended edition. But the citation itself is not IMBD. It's from the Superman homepage discussing what was in the extended edition.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 23:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

First of all, fansites aren't generally considered to be reliable sources (barring special circumstances). Secondly, if you're citing the Superman homepage, then the link should be to the article on the Superman homepage anyways. The film's article at IMDb is already linked. The point is to minimize the number of external links, and having two links to IMDb is pointless. DonQuixote ( talk) 23:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

To editor DonQuixote: I agree with what you've stated above, but the IMBD link is separate from the general coverage of the film. Let me editing and then review it. Any concerns can be brought up on the talk page. The source I'm using has images of the deleted scenes for verififibility, although I avoid using fansites as much as I can.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 00:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Using images to determine differences is original research. You would need to cite a reliable secondary source. DonQuixote ( talk) 00:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply

To editor DonQuixote:, it's not the images I'm citing. It's page using screenshots for verification with full texts. While I am using this, I'm still searching for better quality sources. This should do for now, but i'll add a tag so people can see.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 00:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to be too persnickety about the Superman homepage article (I'll leave that to people who know more about this than I do), but to reiterate, we already have a link to the film's IMDb article, and added to that is the fact that the page you want the additional link to is user generated content which makes it not notable enough to be linked to anyways. DonQuixote ( talk) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The split is an effect of fake Kryptonite. not a nervous breakdown. 2A01:E0A:7:A020:59C5:1B0F:D017:F569 ( talk) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Source? The Kryptonite only appears to directly affect his personality; it's when he's having a breakdown that he splits. DonIago ( talk) 14:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced it is a direct effect of the kryptonite. We see him demonstrate a similar power in Superman 2 at his ice fortress. I think it is the breakdown that manifests through one of his powers. We can only write it up as we see it though. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

At least according to the article, he does: "Aaron Smolinski, who had played baby Clark Kent in the first film, appears in this one as the little boy next to the photo booth Superman changes into."~~ 2600:1700:E90:D120:6075:2858:7E08:B4F ( talk) 02:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Seems like a fix you could have made on your own, but I've gone ahead and edited the sentence for clarity. It does, however, need sourcing. DonIago ( talk) 07:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply